Is it so difficult to find that money ???
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| henke54 Feb 27, 2013 4:35 AM EDT |
Quoting:The issue of why the Linux ecosystem does not set up its own infrastructure for signing (Linux) operating systems has also once again been raised. This particular issue comes down to cost – according to Greg Kroah-Hartman, setting up and running such an infrastructure would almost certainly cost more than the Linux Foundation's entire annual budget.Why is it so difficult for the Linux Foundation to 'convince' all those firms who 'have interest' in Linux, to raise the needed money for such 'signing infrastructure' ??? |
| BernardSwiss Feb 27, 2013 5:34 AM EDT |
That's missing the point. The UEFI Secure Boot system we have in place now (ie. MS Secure Boot) wasn't settled by some company or organization going around and consulting/negotiating, or paying to have it implemented. Where did you get an idea like that? Nope! The current "Secure Boot" (sometimes referred to, only half-facetiously, as "MS Restricted Boot") was established by FIAT. Microsoft announced: "Hey! Everybody! These are the new rules!" "If you want to sell OEM Windows 8 Certified consumer-grade systems (hence under the official Windows 8 Logo programs and Microsoft's associated Windows 8 co-marketing support, etc.) then you will build them to comply with our official Windows 8 Hardware Certification specification -- including our "Secure Boot" specifications." Otherwise you can try to make competitively priced, consumer products on your own, without the benefits we so generously supply to good little OEMs (including your competitors)." "Capiche?" Nobody in the Linux world (including not Canonical/Ubuntu) can get away with anything like that. This is not -- and never was -- about Linux entities having the money, nor about being willing to put in effort. This was just about the habitual monopoly abuser moving in at a critical, formative moment, to bend the nascent standard to its advantage. |
| nmset Feb 27, 2013 9:34 AM EDT |
Why is Red Hat so cool with MS ? I can't believe they just want to increase revenue, they are behaving as MS salesmen, to a point where they want to poison the Linux kernel while they can ship their own fork to their clients, they need not wish that the whole world use the kernel that suits them. There must be something else I can't catch right now. Some conspiration theory ? I want to believe ! |
| jdixon Feb 27, 2013 10:03 AM EDT |
> Why is Red Hat so cool with MS ? They're not. They trying to make sure they can support their customers' needs. Which means being able to install Red Hat on secure boot systems. |
| caitlyn Feb 27, 2013 10:38 AM EDT |
What jdixon said about Red Hat and definitely what Bernard Swiss said about how the latest attempt at vendor lock in by Microsoft came about. This has nothing at all to do with security except for securing Microsoft's rapidly disappearing monopoly. |
| nmset Feb 27, 2013 11:02 AM EDT |
Frankly, it's only about MS monopoly. How widespread are rootkits ? Secure boot doesn't protect agains viral attacks, Windows Achilles' heel ! The root kit here is Linux ! You are a Red Hat customer, and you are being told that you cannot load your own modules, and your kernel that you built as per your specific needs. You go around shouting proudly : "Hey guys, we are Linux users, as free as air, we build our stuff but we can't use it !" How stupid can that be ? |
| jdixon Feb 27, 2013 12:24 PM EDT |
> How widespread are rootkits ? They're getting fairly widespread, unfortunately, I've had to clean up over half a dozen tdss and zeroaccess rootkits over the past year or so. |
| gus3 Feb 27, 2013 3:08 PM EDT |
And digital signatures don't protect against malicious code: Certified online banking trojan in the wild |
| henke54 Feb 28, 2013 4:41 AM EDT |
jdixon wrote:> Why is Red Hat so cool with MS ?hmmmmmmmm... : Quoting:Linux companies or organisations that have paid for, and obtained, keys from Microsoft to ensure that their distributions can be booted on secure boot-enabled devices, have to abide by the terms of a contract or else may have their keys revoked.http://www.itwire.com/opinion-and-analysis/open-sauce/58903-... |
| henke54 Feb 28, 2013 4:46 AM EDT |
>The current "Secure Boot" (sometimes referred to, only half-facetiously, as "MS Restricted Boot") was established by FIAT. Microsoft announced, So why can't the Linux Foundation 'make another standard' ... something like M$ has done with OOXML vs ODF ??? |
| caitlyn Feb 28, 2013 11:47 AM EDT |
Quoting:So why can't the Linux Foundation 'make another standard' ... something like M$ has done with OOXML vs ODF ???That would be great if the Linux vendors or the Linux Foundation were large enough to get the tier one hardware vendors to deliver systems to their standards. However, since Microsoft is so much larger than all the Linux vendors put together they will kowtow to every Microsoft whim. Please remember we are mainly talking about the desktop here. According to Forrester Research Linux grew to 9% of the corporate desktop as of last year. I'm watching us move towards a large rollout at work. This is a big deal to Microsoft because it threatens their big bread and butter business which is starting to go elsewhere. They are going to play hardball every step of the way with the vendors. Linux simply lacks the clout to get the vendors to stand up to Microsoft. |
| mbaehrlxer Mar 01, 2013 5:40 PM EDT |
BernardSwiss: thanks for the best summary explaining this whole mess, i have read so far. |
| jdixon Mar 01, 2013 5:54 PM EDT |
> ...thanks for the best summary explaining this whole mess, i have read so far. Which, to sum up, can be phrased as Microsoft saying: Nice computer business you've got there. Be as shame if something happened to it. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!